DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0093
Pottery Marks - Evidence for Early Writing Practices...
r°glyphic script invented in Upper Egypt.16 Van den
BRINK thought they served an administrative func-
tion related to collecting and redistribution of goods
for funerary use.17
Numerous various interpretations of the purpose
of pottery marks deserve at least a short comment.
The hypothesis of DARESSY may be put aside. The
marks were nearly always located in the same pail
of the pot and their character (repetitions of signs
and groups of signs) testify that they were delibera-
tely executed. Moreover, one could not expect mean-
ingless signs to be allowed to be introduced into
a grave, at least not in Egypt. The interpretation of
pottery marks as potters’ marks may be dismissed
on grounds of the location of the signs on vessels.
They are not located at the bottom of the pot or in
other place where they could not be easily observed,
as a rule. The marks are composed of more than one
element. It is hard to believe that the pottery work-
shops would use such a developed system of naming
the workshops or their owners. Moreover, there are
some cases, when marks were applied on imported
pots which are already marked at the bottom. In these
oases the marks at the bottom have to be treated as
real potters’ marks and the signs introduced at the
sides of the vessels had another purpose. The signs
could be “labels” informing about the content of the
vessel only on various conditions. First, the pots had
to be highly standardised at least as far as their pur-
pose is concerned. One can expect that in such
a situation only a few different marks would be put
°n the same type of vessel. Van den BRINK identi-
fied over 900 different groups of signs, hence this is
not the case. The other possible explanation is that
the decision concerning the content of the vessels was
taken prior to ordering them. This was certainly pos-
sible when a large number of pots was ordered for
a grave. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that
the marks were “Weingutmarken”, as HELCK pro-
posed. Primo, there is no reason to believe, that the
labels referred to the wine only, secundo, making
this assumption would mean that also open vessels
Were used as containers for wine, tertio, the number
of over 900 combinations of signs had to relate to
a corresponding number of the production centres,
which is also difficult to accept. Many marks start
with signs that in the later Hieroglyphic script deno-
ted numerals, hence it was proposed that they were
denoting the capacity of the vessel. However, an unpu-
blished study by van den BERG, referred to by van
den BRINK demonstrated that there is no relation
between the capacity of the wine jars and the nume-
ral signs used in the potmarks put on them.18 Finally,
the assumption that the pottery marks are the only
preserved evidence for use of the “Butische Schrift”
is impossible to accept as it is impossible to explain
why the groups of pottery marks found in Upper and
Lower Egypt did not differ, as should be the case if
there were two centres responsible for invention of
writing.
No satisfactory explanation of the role of the
Egyptian pottery marks has been presented to date,
although it seems that van den BRINK’S proposition
of considering them as “labels” used to help collec-
tion and administration of goods to be deposited in
the graves is the most likely. Such labels written in
hieroglyphic, referring to rural domains, are known
from later royal graves, for instance from the pyra-
mid of Djoser. A confirmation of this hypothesis
would be possible only if we were able to under-
stand the “labels” themselves, which seems to be
unlikely at the moment.
The North Mesopotamian Pottery Marks
Pottery marks appear on Mesopotamian pottery
already in the Prehistoric Period. They are quite pop-
ular during the first half of the 4th millennium (Middle
Uruk culture). In the 3rd millennium they were used
more extensively in the Middle Euphrates valley and
in the territory east of it, reaching to the eastern
boundary of the Khabur triangle. They occurred dur-
ing a relatively short period of time, covering the lat-
er part of the EB III and EB IV periods (ca 2400-
2200 BC). The marks were found both on vessels
from graves and from settlements.
As in the case of Egyptian potmarks their Meso-
potamian counterparts were executed after forming
the pot and prior to its firing. The signs were made
with a pointed tool of rounded or sharp tip, leaving
an incision 1 to 2 mm in width. Sometimes a different
16 HELCK, Thinitische Topfmarken, AA 50, Wiesbaden 17 Van den BRINK, “Thinite” potmarks, p. 274.
1990, p. 2. 18 Ibidem, footnote 61.
87
r°glyphic script invented in Upper Egypt.16 Van den
BRINK thought they served an administrative func-
tion related to collecting and redistribution of goods
for funerary use.17
Numerous various interpretations of the purpose
of pottery marks deserve at least a short comment.
The hypothesis of DARESSY may be put aside. The
marks were nearly always located in the same pail
of the pot and their character (repetitions of signs
and groups of signs) testify that they were delibera-
tely executed. Moreover, one could not expect mean-
ingless signs to be allowed to be introduced into
a grave, at least not in Egypt. The interpretation of
pottery marks as potters’ marks may be dismissed
on grounds of the location of the signs on vessels.
They are not located at the bottom of the pot or in
other place where they could not be easily observed,
as a rule. The marks are composed of more than one
element. It is hard to believe that the pottery work-
shops would use such a developed system of naming
the workshops or their owners. Moreover, there are
some cases, when marks were applied on imported
pots which are already marked at the bottom. In these
oases the marks at the bottom have to be treated as
real potters’ marks and the signs introduced at the
sides of the vessels had another purpose. The signs
could be “labels” informing about the content of the
vessel only on various conditions. First, the pots had
to be highly standardised at least as far as their pur-
pose is concerned. One can expect that in such
a situation only a few different marks would be put
°n the same type of vessel. Van den BRINK identi-
fied over 900 different groups of signs, hence this is
not the case. The other possible explanation is that
the decision concerning the content of the vessels was
taken prior to ordering them. This was certainly pos-
sible when a large number of pots was ordered for
a grave. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that
the marks were “Weingutmarken”, as HELCK pro-
posed. Primo, there is no reason to believe, that the
labels referred to the wine only, secundo, making
this assumption would mean that also open vessels
Were used as containers for wine, tertio, the number
of over 900 combinations of signs had to relate to
a corresponding number of the production centres,
which is also difficult to accept. Many marks start
with signs that in the later Hieroglyphic script deno-
ted numerals, hence it was proposed that they were
denoting the capacity of the vessel. However, an unpu-
blished study by van den BERG, referred to by van
den BRINK demonstrated that there is no relation
between the capacity of the wine jars and the nume-
ral signs used in the potmarks put on them.18 Finally,
the assumption that the pottery marks are the only
preserved evidence for use of the “Butische Schrift”
is impossible to accept as it is impossible to explain
why the groups of pottery marks found in Upper and
Lower Egypt did not differ, as should be the case if
there were two centres responsible for invention of
writing.
No satisfactory explanation of the role of the
Egyptian pottery marks has been presented to date,
although it seems that van den BRINK’S proposition
of considering them as “labels” used to help collec-
tion and administration of goods to be deposited in
the graves is the most likely. Such labels written in
hieroglyphic, referring to rural domains, are known
from later royal graves, for instance from the pyra-
mid of Djoser. A confirmation of this hypothesis
would be possible only if we were able to under-
stand the “labels” themselves, which seems to be
unlikely at the moment.
The North Mesopotamian Pottery Marks
Pottery marks appear on Mesopotamian pottery
already in the Prehistoric Period. They are quite pop-
ular during the first half of the 4th millennium (Middle
Uruk culture). In the 3rd millennium they were used
more extensively in the Middle Euphrates valley and
in the territory east of it, reaching to the eastern
boundary of the Khabur triangle. They occurred dur-
ing a relatively short period of time, covering the lat-
er part of the EB III and EB IV periods (ca 2400-
2200 BC). The marks were found both on vessels
from graves and from settlements.
As in the case of Egyptian potmarks their Meso-
potamian counterparts were executed after forming
the pot and prior to its firing. The signs were made
with a pointed tool of rounded or sharp tip, leaving
an incision 1 to 2 mm in width. Sometimes a different
16 HELCK, Thinitische Topfmarken, AA 50, Wiesbaden 17 Van den BRINK, “Thinite” potmarks, p. 274.
1990, p. 2. 18 Ibidem, footnote 61.
87